July 26, 2010

A stain on our national conscience

An urgent question tabled by Labour's Emily Thornberry is currently being debated in the House of Commons. She has rightly asked about the Crown Prosecution Service's announcement that a police officer will not face charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper seller whom the officer was filmed pushing to the ground during the G20 protests in London April 2009.

Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the protests - he was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration. He died very soon after he was assaulted by the officer.

Dominic Grieve, for whom I have the greatest respect, has just stated that the CPS has told him that they could not proceed with the evidence available to them.

Really?

I would suggest that they watch the widely available video footage once again, and then let a jury decide.

This "decision" has taken months to arrive at. Doubt is expressed by all concerned about the conflicting evidence from the coroners (which I do not regard as the insuperable issue others apparently did: even if there are causation problems with proving that Mr Tomlinson's death resulted from the officer's attack, a simple assault charge would not have held such difficulties in the six months afterwards, and a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is in any case not time barred. Furthermore, prosecution of the officer for acting outwith his professional responsibilities would seem right). Much of real concern has also emerged about the officer himself, who had been ejected from the Metropolitan Police once already before.

Think again. Confidence in the rule of law is severely undermined by such non-decisions. A wholly innocent man has been killed in broad daylight on the streets of London, the event was captured on video, and nothing has been done. It is a stain on our national conscience.

Comments

A stain on our national conscience

An urgent question tabled by Labour's Emily Thornberry is currently being debated in the House of Commons. She has rightly asked about the Crown Prosecution Service's announcement that a police officer will not face charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper seller whom the officer was filmed pushing to the ground during the G20 protests in London April 2009.

Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the protests - he was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration. He died very soon after he was assaulted by the officer.

Dominic Grieve, for whom I have the greatest respect, has just stated that the CPS has told him that they could not proceed with the evidence available to them.

Really?

I would suggest that they watch the widely available video footage once again, and then let a jury decide.

This "decision" has taken months to arrive at. Doubt is expressed by all concerned about the conflicting evidence from the coroners (which I do not regard as the insuperable issue others apparently did: even if there are causation problems with proving that Mr Tomlinson's death resulted from the officer's attack, a simple assault charge would not have held such difficulties in the six months afterwards, and a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is in any case not time barred. Furthermore, prosecution of the officer for acting outwith his professional responsibilities would seem right). Much of real concern has also emerged about the officer himself, who had been ejected from the Metropolitan Police once already before.

Think again. Confidence in the rule of law is severely undermined by such non-decisions. A wholly innocent man has been killed in broad daylight on the streets of London, the event was captured on video, and nothing has been done. It is a stain on our national conscience.